Menu

Mapping the evolving legal landscape

In our recent post, Status of CBD products under Ohio law: Part one, we discussed the perplexing regulations in Ohio that made it effectively illegal to sell hemp and Cannabidiol (CBD) despite passage of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, otherwise known as the 2018 Farm Bill. That landscape has now changed in Ohio with the passage of Senate Bill 57, signed into law by Governor DeWine on July 30, 2019.

The version of Senate Bill 57 that Governor DeWine signed into law has special emergency provisions making the legislation effective immediately upon signing the bill. This post will examine what Senate Bill 57 does to change Ohio’s legal landscape for hemp and CBD and provides an overview of what Ohioans can expect as the hemp program takes shape in Ohio. Continue Reading

In its Answer, Nike asks for a declaration that Nike is the sole owner of copyrights in the modified “KL2” logo, a finding that Kawhi’s use of the modified “KL2” logo infringes the copyrights owned by Nike, cancellation of Kawhi’s copyright registration to the modified “KL2” logo due to fraud in his copyright application, and a finding that Kawhi breached the “Men’s Pro Basketball Contract” he entered into with Nike on October 26, 2011. Continue Reading

On May 25, 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became effective across the European Union. The GDPR is a regulation designed to give EU residents control over their personal data and simplify the regulatory framework for international organizations doing business in the EU. In its infancy, it was not entirely clear how the GDPR would be enforced. Now, one year later, the regulation is beginning to show some teeth.

For individual consumers, the GDPR likely calls to mind last year’s flurry of privacy policy email updates from companies scrambling to comply, or perhaps the constant stream of consent pop-ups and cookie banners Europeans navigate on a daily basis when browsing the web. For U.S. companies that do business abroad, however, the GDPR represents a constant struggle to refine their data protection policies, as strict compliance remains an elusive target.

Although many data privacy lawyers disagree on whether strict compliance with the GDPR is even possible, recent enforcement measures have shed some light on how the regulation may be enforced in the future. A review of last year’s enforcement actions should help companies avoid unnecessary penalties and inform them what to expect going forward. Continue Reading

On Monday, May 3, 2019, in the midst of the NBA finals, Kawhi Leonard of the Toronto Raptors filed a lawsuit against Nike, Inc. (Nike) in the US District Court Southern District of California. The complaint asks the Court for a declaration that Kawhi is the sole author of the “KL2” logo, that his use of that logo does not infringe the rights of Nike, and that Nike committed fraud in its copyright application. The “KL2” logo is sometimes referred to as the “Klaw” logo which is a nickname for Kawhi. Kawhi owns US trademark registration number 5608427 for the “KL2” logo for use with apparel. However, Nike owns US copyright registration number VA0002097900 for the “KL2” logo.

In Part 2, we cover the key Intellectual Property issues that are emerging in this arena. Read part 1 here.

United States Patent and Trademark Office update

Following the enactment of the Farm Bill, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has officially issued guidelines when reviewing trademark applications for CBS and hemp-derived goods and services.

This is a big step for the cannabis industry as for many years, entities have tried, unsuccessfully, to legally protect their trademarks in connection with commercial cannabis businesses. The USPTO policy for many decades has been rigid in its dealing with cannabis related trademarks; the tolerance level being essentially none. Continue Reading

Current legal status of hemp and cannabidiol (CBD) based products under state law

How intellectual property rights will be protected

We will walk through both the background and current status related to these issues in this two part series.

Background: Hemp and CBD legal status in Ohio

Until recently, federal law did not differentiate hemp from marijuana meaning both were considered “marihuana” (the law dates back decades and uses an older spelling of the word marijuana) and outlawed as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. Late last year, Congress passed the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, otherwise known as the “Farm Bill”. The Farm Bill removed hemp from the definition of “marihuana,” effectively removing it from the Controlled Substances Act and paving the way for legalized hemp cultivation and sale. Continue Reading

On May 8, 2019, the Review Board of the U. S. Copyright Office issued a decision stating that Yeezy 350 Boost Version 1 and Yeezy 350 Boost Version 2 sneakers each include copyrightable subject matter. The Adidas Yeezy sneakers are a collaboration between Adidas AG and Kanye West which has been wildly popular and as a result has been frequently knocked off by imitators. So it is not surprising that Adidas AG pursued copyright protection for these sneakers. This decision by the U.S. Copyright Office clarifies that footwear designs can be perceived as two- or three-dimensional works of art separate from the footwear themselves. Thus, footwear designers clearly have the option of copyright protection for footwear designs having sufficient originality.

Yeezy 350 Boost Version 1 (left), Yeezy 350 Boost Version 2 (right)

In 2017, Adidas AG filed applications for copyright registration of the Yeezy Boost 350 Version 1 and the Yeezy Boost 350 Version 2 which are shown above in photos from the decision. The U.S. Copyright Office initially rejected these applications because the sneakers were said to be “useful articles that do not contain any copyrightable authorship needed to sustain a claim to copyright.” Note that copyright law does not protect useful articles, such as clothing and footwear. See 17 U.S.C. § 101.

The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center has released its 2018 annual report, which includes statistics that internet-enabled theft, wire fraud and exploitation were responsible for a staggering $2.7 billion in financial losses in 2018. If you are involved in transactional work, this can happen to you.

Reports detail an increasingly common story of wire fraud accompanying large sum transactions. The story line often includes a spoofed email invoice in connection with closing, which instructs one party to wire closing related expenses to a fraudulent account. As a result of the detailed and convincing invoice, one party loses their funds forever when they wire a large sum to the hacker’s offshore account.

What are the courts saying?

Recent news reported on a story about a hack that took place during a real estate closing. A law firm forwarded money to Deutsche Bank in accordance with instructions from a mortgage company. Through “mimicking” the e-mail address that the lender used, the hacker provided fraudulent wiring instructions to the law firm.

In rejecting the law firm’s complaint against the lender, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that state law does not allow companies to bring negligence claims against organizations that are hit with a data breach based on “a duty to safeguard the private information of another individual.” The court observed that its decision rests on a developing area of law: “whether or how to impose liability on a party whose potentially negligent conduct flows from a data breach.” Courts have come down on both sides of the issue, giving companies little clarity on who is liable for negligence after a data breach.

Red flags to watch for:

Above all, verifying the wire instructions verbally with the creditor/vendor can easily prevent loss in such scenarios. Through quick communication, parties can discover incorrect bank account information and avoid wire fraud. There are many indicia that point to suspicious e-mailed (or faxed) instructions. Here are a few red flags to keep in mind:

A message from a Gmail or Hotmail account, especially late in a transaction

A slight misspelling of words in the sender’s address or message

Instructions that direct a wire to a foreign account, an account without the payee’s proper name, or an unknown bank

Changing wire instructions

Any “rush” transaction

These cases demonstrate the importance of maintaining adequate cyber insurance and the necessity of independently verifying all wire instructions transmitted through non-secure servers. Finally, calling a known telephone number is typically the safest way to verify information with any party to a matter.

Much has been written about the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Commentators have touted the EU’s supposedly superior data protection regimen. But don’t lose focus on what is happening within the U.S. and the implications for U.S. companies that may not be focused on GDPR requirements. Even companies that are GDPR focused may not meet the upcoming requirements. At least three significant privacy legislation fronts in the U.S. bear mentioning: Continue Reading

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP offers this blog for general informational purposes only. The content of this blog is not intended as legal advice for any purpose, and you should not consider it as such advice or as a legal opinion on any matters. The information provided herein is subject to change without notice, and you may not rely upon any such information with regard to a particular matter or set of facts. Further, the use of the blog does not create, and is not intended to create, any attorney-client relationship between you and Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP or any individual lawyer in the firm. No such relationship will be considered to have been formed until we have had an opportunity to resolve any conflict of interest issues and have advised you, in writing, of the nature and scope of the legal services to be provided. Unless we establish an attorney-client relationship with you with regard to the particular matter, we will not treat any information that you may send to us, or submit as a comment to a blog article or entry, as confidential or privileged, and any unsolicited communications may be disclosed to other persons without regard to confidentiality considerations. Use of the blog is at your own risk, and the site is provided without warranty of any kind. We make no warranties of any kind regarding the accuracy or completeness of any information on this blog, and we make no representations regarding whether such information is reliable, up-to-date, or applicable to any particular situation. Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP expressly disclaims all liability for actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this blog, or for any damages resulting from your viewing and use of this blog.